Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT <br /> April 6, 2006 <br /> Page 6 <br /> Mr. Evans said the EIC had an analysis of homes in the town and what measures would be <br /> required to achieve that level of performance and what it would cost in dollar terms and also on a <br /> payback basis and as a percentage of total building cost. This information goes into a report that <br /> is sent to the California Energy Commission where the case is made that the incremental <br /> efficiency improvement is actually cost effective. <br /> Commissioner Kerns was concerned that Title 24 is already strict and to require above and <br /> beyond that might be asking too much of homeowners. Chairman Cottrell questioned the <br /> incremental cost. Mr. Evans related that State law requires that it be cost effective and the <br /> analysis that the EIC has done shows the incremental cost of these improvements is typically <br /> around$1 a foot. <br /> Commissioner Carey offered that if a MDA credit is to be allowed for solar there should be some <br /> consideration for review by the Planning Commission. <br /> CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by <br /> Commissioner Kerns and passed unanimously to forward the recommendation to the City <br /> Council to adopt the resolution approving the proposed amendments to all sections as amended. <br /> Staff was directed to proceed with the initial study of potential environmental impacts relating to <br /> granting additional development credit. <br /> SHORT RECESS CALLED AT 8:12. <br /> MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:16. <br /> 3.4. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CODES <br /> WITH REGARD TO EFFECTIVE DATE, APPEAL, AND COUNCIL REVIEW OF <br /> ACTIONS FOR ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS (SECTIONS 10- <br /> 1.1108-1110, 10-2.1305, AND 10-2.1313); CEQA REVIEW: CATEGORICAL <br /> EXEMPTION, SECTION 15061 (6)(3) (staff-Debbie Pedro). <br /> Staff report by Debbie Pedro stated that this amendment to the ordinance was reviewed by the <br /> Planning Commission as a new business item in February and the purpose is to reconcile some <br /> existing discrepancies in the municipal code in regard to the appeal and approval process of site <br /> development permits. <br /> OPENED PUBLIC HEARING <br /> CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING <br />